ArticleInternational journal of women's health2024
"Barriers and Advantages of Self-Sampling Tests, for HPV Diagnosis: A Qualitative Field Experience Before Implementation in a Rural Community in Ecuador".
Article in International journal of women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Women's preferences and concerns on HPV screening sampling methods for cervical cancer in Ibadan, Nigeria: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- The role of the health belief model and HPV self-testing in cervical cancer screening participation in the Czech Republic.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Comparative efficacy, feasibility and acceptability of HPV DNA testing on first-void urine versus self-collected vaginal samples: a real-world study in a resource-limited setting.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Informed consent in cervical cancer screening research in Butajira district, Ethiopia.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2025Article
- A realist evaluation of a novel cervical cancer prevention strategy in Iquitos, Peru.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Improving Patient Education Materials for HPV Self-Collection: Insights from Women at High Risk of Developing Cervical Cancer.Cancer management and research · 2025Article
- A pay-it-forward approach to improve feedback rate of HPV-based self-sampling in cervical cancer screening among women in ethnic minority regions of China: a randomized controlled trial protocol.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Citizen science as an instrument for women's health research.Nature medicine · 2024Article
- Factors Associated with Under- and Over-Screening for Cervical Cancer in Rural Areas of Cuenca, Ecuador.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
- Perceived Feasibility and Acceptability of a Self-Collected HPV DNA Testing Policy for Cervical Cancer Screening in Thailand.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cervical cancer screening has demonstrated high efficacy in reducing cervical cancer mortality worldwide. However, clinician sampling is often perceived as an uncomfortable procedure that could reduce screening uptake. Self-sampling methods for HPV diagnosis have shown high sensitivity, which could increase acceptance and screening rates among women. Purpose: This study aims to identify the perceived barriers and advantages of self-sampling methods versus clinician sampling for cervical cancer screening in a rural setting in Ecuador. Patients and Methods: A qualitative study was conducted. Seven focus group discussions took place in the rural Parish of El Valle in Azuay Province, Cuenca, Ecuador. Women native to this rural area were included in the study. FGDs were recorded and transcribed, and content analysis was performed to categorize and analyze the data. Results: A total of 45 women participated in the study. Clinician sampling was perceived as a painful and intrusive method. However, participants believed that it is more reliable compared to self-sampling methods, attributing this to the direct visualization of the cervix, which facilitates the detection of cervical pathologies. The perceived advantages of self-sampling included increased comfort, pain reduction, time savings, the ability to perform the test at home, and the potential for widespread availability through pharmacies or local traditional healers. Nevertheless, doubts about the test's reliability as well as the user's proficiency in self-testing posed barriers to the adoption of this technique. Conclusion: Self-sampling methods offer several advantages over clinician sampling, such as enhanced privacy, comfort, and accessibility to cancer screening. Barriers primarily revolved around users' proficiency in performing the test and the reliability of the results. Providing training for using self-sampling tests could address these barriers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.